Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (B. S. E. B.) and its authorities to refund the excess amount charged from petitioner by way of excess billing in connection with Consumer No. ADI-162, LTIS. ( 2 ) THE case of petitioner is that the firm was sanctioned an electrical connection with load capacity of 79 HP on 16-7-1996 for which a security amount of Rs. 31,600/- was deposited by it on 20-7-1996. However, actual connection given to the petitioner was of 63 KVA out of which 10 KVA was given to another consumer, a petrol pump. In the background, the petitioner applied for temporary connection of 35 HP load and deposited security money to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- on 16-10-1996. Subsequently, another sum of Rs. 82,718. 67 paise deposited on 21-7-1997 whereinafter the electrical connection with load capacity of 79 HP was regularised on 11-8-1997. In the meantime, a day earlier on 10-8-1997, temporary connection was discontinued. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondents when raised the energy bill, it was on the basis of 79 HP load factor to which petitioner objected vide representation dated 1-5-1999. The 4th respondent on 17-5-1999 accepted that no agreement was executed by the Board apart from the temporary connection granted of 35 HP load and the capacity of transformer was only of 63 KVA with another connection. It is only thereafter the transformer was replaced by 100 KVA transformer on 20-5-1999. According to petitioner, the regularisation of 79 HP load was on paper only but it could not avail the same. In spite of the same, a bill to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- given on 1-10-1999 which the petitioner objected whereinafter the 3rd respondent-Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur accepted the claim of petitioner as genuine and on 29-12-1999 sought for approval of revised bill. The 2nd respondent-General Manager, Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur asked for details on 11-2-2000 and requested the 3rd respondent to revise the bills but in spite of calculation made and decision taken on 9-3-2000, the excess to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- has not yet been refunded. According to respondents, the petitioner suppressed many facts and no such amount as claimed is refundable. 2,40,000/- has not yet been refunded. According to respondents, the petitioner suppressed many facts and no such amount as claimed is refundable. The agreement having executed on 26-5-1999, its minimum life will continue for two years for which petitioner is liable to pay electrical charges. Mr. Sen, the counsel for the Board submitted that two years period will lapse on 25-5-2000 upto which period the electrical charges to be paid by petitioner even though it may not consume electricity. If any amount is found refundable, will be adjusted against the bill to be prepared for the period upto 25-5-2001. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner objected the submission and placed reliance on agreement to show that the effective date as was fixed was 11-8-1997. The life of the agreement, thereby, according to petitioner, will be minimum upto 11-8-1999 whereinafter the petitioner having not obtained any electrical energy, the respondents cannot charge by way of compulsory demand. ( 4 ) FROM the enclosures attached to the writ petition and pleadings of the parties, certain peculiar facts emerges. The letter of petitioner dated 1-5-1999 shows that the load of 79 HP was allowed by departments letter No. 543 dated 16-7-1996 for which petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 33,600/ -. The temporary load connection stated to have been taken for 30 HP in the said letter, though it is mentioned as 35 HP in the writ petition. Thus, there is clear contradiction made by the petitioner in the writ petition and in the representation relating to load of temporary connection stated to have been taken on 16-10-1996. In the said letter dated 1-5-1999, it has been shown that the temporary connection was closed on 21-7-1997 on payment of total dues. If it was so closed in July, 1997, then it must have taken load upto 79 HP subsequently, which will be evident from the agreement executed on 26-5-1999 (Annexure-A ). The said agreement reached for the period from 11-8-1997 for 79 HP and thereby, it is not clear as to how the petitioner can ask for any remission on the basis of load factor from 11-8-1997 onwards. The said agreement reached for the period from 11-8-1997 for 79 HP and thereby, it is not clear as to how the petitioner can ask for any remission on the basis of load factor from 11-8-1997 onwards. The allegation of petitioner is that the transformer was of load capacity of 63 KVA and was replaced on 29-5-1999 with transformer of 100 KVA and there was no basis to supply energy with 79 HP load factor cannot be accepted as the agreement was reached by petitioner with the Board on 26-5-1999 i. e. after the transformer was replaced (20-5-1999 ). If the petitioner had knowledge that the transformer of 100 KVA was replaced on 20-5-1999 and there was no appropriate transformer prior to the said date, there was no occasion for the petitioner to reach agreement subsequently on 26-5-1999 for the period from 11-8-1997 onwards showing the load of 79 HP. Such agreement having received, after the replacement of transformer, it is not clear as to how the petitioner can claim for preparation of a bill with lower load limit of 30. 35 HP even in respect to the period after 11-8-1997. Thereby, no specific case having made out and as there appears to be certain confusion and contradictory disputed question of fact, this Court is not inclined to grant relief, as sought for petitioner may approach the competent authority. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .